Difference between revisions of "Talk:Symbiotes"

From Lunarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Copyright questions about images in article)
(Topic: What to do, what to do)
Line 26: Line 26:
  
 
:Maybe Black Swans needs to be its own article?  Given the presence of discussion questions, I assume the whole article was intended as a starter/thought piece.  Perhaps symbiosis is the wrong word; do we have other candidates? [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 
:Maybe Black Swans needs to be its own article?  Given the presence of discussion questions, I assume the whole article was intended as a starter/thought piece.  Perhaps symbiosis is the wrong word; do we have other candidates? [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
:: This Symboliotes entry was a reorganization of a paper written for another purpose and would work better here as several linked entries.  It is in three distinct parts.  The first part is on "why" and is somewhat out of place by the normal logic of a technical article.  It appears first first because reading the technical discussion first tends reduce the number of readers who ever read past it into the why section.  People simply like "why" better than "what".
 +
 +
:: The black swans make a somewhat out of context appearance because the "why" of the whole article is to force out-of-box thinking.  Yes, we really do need a full article on black swans as we are doing our up-most to generate some.
 +
 +
:: The third section, legal robot people, is an argument ad adsurbum.  Making corporations people logically leads to making robots people. If you do not accept the second idea, then you should not accept the first idea.  Again this is a rather desperate attempt to get a raise out of somebody at a time when the Moon is a dead subject.
 +
 +
:: I do stand by the major concept however.  To reinvigorate human space exploration for the 21st century, we must redesign everything.  The place to start is '''not''' at the bottom with rockets and spacesuits but at the top with a complete re-conception of who human beings are how we relate to our machines.  Odd as it may seem, a spaceship that loves you is a good place to start.
 +
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 00:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:20, 20 January 2012

We need to rethink our design of lunar settlements in view of new information and new concepts. This is a start of that design effort.

As with all design efforts we must start at the top. Our relationship to our machines is at the very top of any design involving man in space.

I look forward to your input.


Thanks, --Jriley 17:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright questions about images in article

There are some image files that seem to me to be neither public domain nor the property of Jriley. There is "Steve Jobs & iPhone", "Terminator, Defleshed" and "HAL200101.jpg". There is no clear attestation of public domain or original work for a number of other images. What I propose to do is leave the black swan graph and robonaut images and delete the rest. If there is good reason to believe that Jriley has the right to publish these images, now is the time to make this clear. There has been much sentiment for new restrictive laws that could put Wikis out of action for even suspected copyright violations. I do not want Lunarpedia to be an example of the copyright abuse that backers of such laws can point to and say: "See, that is the flagrant abuse we are trying to stop." Farred 23:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I have followed a suggestion by Mike and Rose for the three most likely to be problematic images (as a step short of deletion in case a fair use or other solution can be worked out in the next few days), but most of the other images, depending on their sources, are likely to be equally as problematic. We really need to know where they came from and what terms they're available under. -- Strangelv 05:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I've found one of the generic images. It's public domain on Wikipedia. if Tom doesn't reappear in time to clarify and we can't find them the other generic images should be easy enough to replace with ones we can be confident about. Obviously, the three others are going to be a little bit harder to replace... -- Strangelv 08:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The images undocumented images are all generic or taken from ad materials. They are not critical to the argument of the entry so I simply removed them.

--Jriley 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic

The symbiotic relationship that we have with plants and machines will play an important role in the future of moon's history. The article needs refinement... the black swans are out of the topic. This articles is organized like a college handout. --Jose Giraldez 22:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Some people might find it useful to think of the relationship between people and our machines as symbiotic. We can leave it as an article on Lunarpedia but technically machines cannot be symbiotes because they are not alive. Attempting legal incorporation of a machine will not change that. Legal corporations are not alive. Any action a corporation takes must be taken by some human agent of the corporation acting on behalf of the corporation. A corporation is a legal organization of people that is documented by some state of the United States or a foreign state. It is not a living thing and it cannot be a symbiote. A machine can be the property of a corporation, but it cannot be a corporation. Farred 00:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Although a human would program the machine and the machine would act following that program, unintended consequences may happen, such as stock trading programs crashing the market by following instructions to minimize losses, followed by humans capitalizing on the crash by buying cheap. What happens when machines start programming each other? Rose/Miros 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
A recent Wired cover article had a red-colored toy robot on its side. It firmly announced that Artificial Intelligence is here -- and that it's nothing at all like we expected. We seem to be building unconsciousnesses of enormous, if typically specialized capabilities. It's very possible that some combination of these plus some additional, to-be developed modules -- to borrow a term from Evolutionary Psychology -- will finally provide us with the Singularity level conscious AI we've been awaiting for more than half a century. -- Strangelv 09:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe Black Swans needs to be its own article? Given the presence of discussion questions, I assume the whole article was intended as a starter/thought piece. Perhaps symbiosis is the wrong word; do we have other candidates? Rose/Miros 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
This Symboliotes entry was a reorganization of a paper written for another purpose and would work better here as several linked entries. It is in three distinct parts. The first part is on "why" and is somewhat out of place by the normal logic of a technical article. It appears first first because reading the technical discussion first tends reduce the number of readers who ever read past it into the why section. People simply like "why" better than "what".
The black swans make a somewhat out of context appearance because the "why" of the whole article is to force out-of-box thinking. Yes, we really do need a full article on black swans as we are doing our up-most to generate some.
The third section, legal robot people, is an argument ad adsurbum. Making corporations people logically leads to making robots people. If you do not accept the second idea, then you should not accept the first idea. Again this is a rather desperate attempt to get a raise out of somebody at a time when the Moon is a dead subject.
I do stand by the major concept however. To reinvigorate human space exploration for the 21st century, we must redesign everything. The place to start is not at the bottom with rockets and spacesuits but at the top with a complete re-conception of who human beings are how we relate to our machines. Odd as it may seem, a spaceship that loves you is a good place to start.

--Jriley 00:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)